Web   ·   Wiki   ·   Activities   ·   Blog   ·   Lists   ·   Chat   ·   Meeting   ·   Bugs   ·   Git   ·   Translate   ·   Archive   ·   People   ·   Donate

#sugar-meeting meeting, 2009-12-04 10:01:00

Minutes | Index | Today     Channels | Search | Join

All times shown according to UTC.

Time Nick Message
10:01 walterbender We have an agenda in the wiki...
10:01 the first topic is Bernie's but he is not here yet...
10:02 the second topic is the DP. has anyone heard back from the committee?
10:02 cjb nope
10:02 SeanDaly not I
10:02 walterbender nor I :(
10:02 I know they got my message regarding the deadline
10:03 I am afraid this process has not worked.
10:03 bernie This is Bernie, Adam, and Mel.
10:03 We're all here.
10:03 walterbender ciao bernardo
10:03 SeanDaly greetings bernieadammel
10:03 walterbender do you need the backlog?
10:04 bernie no, we have it.
10:04 (Mel is typing)
10:04 walterbender since bernie is here, let's start with his topic.
10:04 bernie which topic is that?
10:04 walterbender #TOPIC teams@ lists
10:04 bernie Ah, yes. I see.
10:05 walterbender Bernie, can you summarize your proposal?
10:06 bernie I worry that we'd end up using long cc lists too much if we do not have a standard way to share business/strategic communication with key people such as team leaders
10:06 I'd propose a teams@ list for this kind of communication.
10:06 SeanDaly I like this idea
10:07 often worry about teams not interacting enough (fear justified or not)
10:07 tomeu I don't see why team coordinators would need to be much more involved in these discussions than other people
10:07 bernie there's potential for abuse of course... as there was for the wide-audience slobs
10:07 walterbender bernie: can you give a hypothetical example of how it would be used?
10:07 tomeu do we have any past situations that support this need?
10:07 SeanDaly A media campaign launch :-)
10:08 "all hands on deck"
10:08 bernie tomeu: for example, getting you and erikos in the loop regarding the nokia deal
10:08 tomeu: or the launchpad thing
10:09 SeanDaly or, my Osor meeting in which hosting possibilities were discussed (still have to write up a debrief)
10:09 walterbender bernie: I am not sure I understand
10:10 each of these cases seems unique. what is the common denominator that a list would address?
10:10 Doesn't each team, e.g., marketing or infrastructure already have a list?
10:11 tomeu frankly, I see that proposal dividing more than uniting our community
10:11 SeanDaly well, the problem is lack of interaction
10:11 walterbender SeanDaly: can you please elaborate?
10:11 SeanDaly for example if marketing stuff which impacts development,
10:11 cjb tomeu: yes, it does seem to elevate members into "trusted or untrusted", which is often a mistake
10:11 tomeu and I don't like the word leader, each team needs a coordinator but several of its members can have a leader role in different areas
10:11 bernie walterbender: team leaders is just a way to include everyone who is trusted enough to lead a team
10:11 SeanDaly there are problems real quick if developers not in the loop
10:11 bernie tomeu: I also see the downside, that's true
10:12 SeanDaly at the same time, not all devs want all marketing info all the time
10:12 bernie mel: I have a counterproposal - instead of having a teams@ list, make it a req that each team has a slobs in the loop for that team
10:12 SeanDaly to put it mildly
10:12 bernie i.e. each team would have a "SLOBs ambassador"
10:12 walterbender bernie: in theory we have that already.
10:12 it is in our bylaws
10:12 cjb SJ was telling me about wikipedia does this
10:12 tomeu bernie: as I said, I think we have coordinators, that may be defacto leaders, or not
10:13 cjb they say you can *only* start a team if you can find a board member to sit on it, or something
10:13 bernie walterbender: in practice, though?
10:13 walterbender bernie: for the most part, yes.
10:13 cjb so it's sort of the opposite of our decision panel rules; rather than requiring no members of the board, they require at least one
10:13 bernie walterbender:if this was implemented well in practice, would it solve our confidentiality issues?
10:13 walterbender bernie: infrastruture-you; marketing-sean; etc.
10:14 activities-me
10:14 bernie bernie: but we only have 7 people on the board
10:14 walterbender and not so many teams either
10:14 bernie mel: but a SLOB can be an ambassador for 2 teams if needed
10:14 mel asks again: if this was implemented well in practice, would it solve our confidentiality issues?
10:15 cjb we can "solve our confidentiality issues" by not being too lazy to write out addresses of individuals on e-mails when we need to, though
10:15 walterbender I guess I (a) don't understand what are confidentiality issues are and (b) don't understand how another list would solve the problem I don't understand
10:15 cjb and if we do that, we haven't just split our community into people we like and people we don't
10:15 tomeu cjb++
10:15 cjb at least not in a way that's obvious to them :)
10:16 bernie mel: bernie and I just clarified something between us - the "SLOBs ambassadors requirement" for teams would be for a SLOBs person to be actively watching that team, not necessarily leading it
10:16 (bernie had thought it was that a SLOB had to be leading the team)
10:16 walterbender bernie: in factr, in almost every case, the SLOBs member is NOT the leader, which is a good thing.
10:16 bernie mel: cjb++
10:16 cjb so my thought is that this proposal has the potential to create much more harm than good
10:16 even though I can see that it could create some good
10:17 walterbender bernie: is a motion emerging from this discussion?
10:17 bernie mel: I'd like to propose the motion that we have SLOBs ambassadors to each team, instead of a teams@ list
10:17 bernie: I would agree on that.
10:17 cjb what happens in the weird case of no-one wanting to be their ambassador?
10:18 walterbender bernie: maybe the motion should be that we ensure that we execute on that structure, which is already in our by-laws
10:18 cjb does the ambassador have to go to all that team's meetings?
10:18 SeanDaly perhaps it's early to do this. If there were 3x the number of volunteers, i think it would more useful.
10:18 tomeu btw, we have teams without coordinators, I don't see how we are talking about this before having found a coordinator for each
10:18 bernie mel: cjb: it would be a requirement for a team to have /an/ ambassador, I'd say
10:18 tomeu we don't even have a community manager yet
10:18 bernie mel: cjb: but how the ambassador and the team interface doesn't have to be strictly defined right now
10:18 SeanDaly or an education/content manager...
10:19 cjb so, this idea is obviously much less objectionable
10:19 but I don't think it solves the same problem
10:19 and I don't know that the problem it solves is actually one we have
10:19 bernie Adam: i think this is a useful conversation, but I'm not sure if we can encode these responsibilities easily.
10:19 walterbender deserves the heat because making sure the by-laws are observed is probably the responsibility of the ED
10:19 bernie mel: I think this is a good convo to take to Planet as a conversation starter, but we probably can't make much more progress on it right now
10:20 tomeu also, the only team with regular meetings is the marketing team
10:20 bernie bernie: +1
10:20 adam: +1
10:20 cjb +1
10:20 SeanDaly regular as long as I'm not moving house :D
10:20 tomeu and the only other one that has occasional meetings is the dev team
10:20 walterbender in any case, it seems we are not planning to move forward with Bernie's original proposal at this time?
10:20 tomeu so I don't know what sense makes to say that slobs attends team meetings
10:20 bernie mel: that's what I think
10:21 bernie: that's fine
10:21 SeanDaly I think revisit the topic for the happy day we have enough volunteers that not everybody knows everybody
10:21 bernie adam: I do like what mel said - as long as it's not enforced, to have that expectation...
10:21 walterbender I will volunteer to crack the whip to ensure we have a mapping between SLOBs and teams.
10:21 bernie adam: that the team coordinator builds a social relationship with slobs
10:21 mel: moving on then?
10:21 walterbender bernie: are you satisfied?
10:22 bernie yes
10:22 walterbender OK.
10:22 to summarize: we will not implement the teams@ list at this time, but will mae a concerted effrot to ensure that there is SLOBs presence on all teams.
10:23 #TOPIC SoaS DP
10:23 Have any of you on the bus heard back from the DP?
10:23 none of the rest of us have.
10:23 bernie all three: no
10:23 walterbender :(
10:24 I think this means that we have to dissolve the panel
10:24 as per our discussion last time.
10:24 SeanDaly when was deadline again pls?
10:24 walterbender today.
10:24 SeanDaly yes, disappointing.
10:25 bernie mel: ok, so we dissolve the panel and then who handles the decision? slobs?
10:25 cjb mel: that would be my preference
10:25 walterbender that is what we need to decide
10:25 bernie mel: mine as well
10:25 cjb I don't think this situation is encoded in our bylaws
10:25 so we get to wing it :)
10:25 bernie mel: motion - when a DP fails to meet a deadline, the decision passes to slobs
10:26 cjb seconded
10:26 walterbender discussion?
10:26 cjb this seems uncontroversial to me.  any objections?
10:26 tomeu I thought it was already like that
10:26 walterbender in some sense, we already have that responsibility
10:26 cjb tomeu: we hadn't really talked about it
10:27 bernie bernie: I think we still ought to take into account the consensus of the DP that was summarized in the wiki
10:27 tomeu cjb: does the slobs give any power to the dp when it's created?
10:27 cjb tomeu: no, not really
10:27 tomeu I thought it was only a consultative thing
10:27 cjb bernie: I'm not sure about that
10:27 tomeu then the slobs have always retained the responsibility of deciding on thast
10:27 SeanDaly yes, SLOBs should inspect the status of work even if no consensus reached
10:27 cjb of course, whoever proposes a new decision on the topic should read the DP's work first
10:27 walterbender the DP is suppose to make a recommendation to SLOBs for some action.
10:27 cjb but the DP's work is not complete
10:27 walterbender in this case, no recommendation, but lots of fruitful discussion
10:28 we can make a decision based on that input or ask for a new DP
10:28 cjb so we shouldn't just take it as gospel or anything.  it's just something to read and help educate us.
10:28 bernie bernie: cjb: so do we disregard the DP decision even when there was a clear consensus?
10:28 cjb bernie: yes.
10:28 that's what dissolving the DP means.
10:28 bernie cjb: ah, after reading your explanation., I'd tend to agree.
10:28 walterbender bernie: and presumably get voted off the island as a result
10:29 cjb :)
10:29 bernie mel; so i had a motion and cjb seconded it... do we want to discuss it more, or vote?
10:29 (that would give us a way to move forward with the DP's decision and actually make a decision)
10:29 walterbender I am not sure we need a motion because it is how I would interpret the staus quo, but a motion won't hurt for clarity's sake
10:29 bernie mel: motion - when a DP fails to meet a deadline, the decision passes to slobs.
10:29 walterbender shall we vote?
10:29 cjb aye
10:30 bernie mel: aye
10:30 SeanDaly aye
10:30 walterbender aye
10:30 tomeu as I said, I don't understand why we vote this
10:30 bernie adam:    tends to agree with tomeu
10:30 cjb tomeu: it's just a point of clarification
10:30 tomeu is it said anywhere that the decision is removed from the slobs at any point?
10:30 cjb nope
10:31 I think the reason it's slightly unintuitive is:
10:31 * The bylaws say we get to solve conflict by starting a decision panel
10:31 tomeu well, then I think we need to leave very clearly that the decision is always left to the slobs
10:31 if someone thinks otherwise, it's bad
10:31 cjb tomeu: that's what the vote helps to do :)
10:31 * and if a DP fails... well, maybe we just start another one or something
10:31 tomeu ok, if people think it helps, I vote yes
10:32 bernie adam: feels we've already voted on this previously
10:32 cjb the vote passed already :)
10:33 next up:  would someone like to volunteer to review the DP work, and create a motion to solve the original problem with?
10:33 it should probably be several of us, or even all of us
10:33 walterbender adam: we certainly discussed it last week, but I think we were all holding out for a DP report :(
10:33 cjb: yes. I think that is the next step in regard to this particular issue.
10:34 bernie FYI: This computer will  die in less than 5 min
10:34 cjb heh
10:34 bernie bernie, mel, adam will be offline then
10:34 walterbender and I think we should make a decision next week.
10:34 bernie Be quick!
10:34 cjb bernie: which of you wants to be involved in coming up with a decision on the DP work?
10:35 walterbender: make a decision on the original request, right?
10:35 walterbender #ACTION: everyone reviews the DP work and comes prepared next week to discuss and decide.
10:35 cjb ok
10:35 it might be good to have the motions available before the meeting
10:35 walterbender if there are questions, raise them BEFORE the meeting to the list
10:35 bernie bernie: cjb: I'll leave this hot potato to someone else :)
10:35 cjb so if folks could e-mail them as they come up with them
10:35 that'd be good
10:35 walterbender by list, I mean iaep [SLOBS]
10:35 cjb I'll volunteer to try to review all their stuff and think about it/come up with a motion
10:36 would be good if others can too
10:36 walterbender thanks cjb
10:36 bernie bernie: cjb: mel is currently busy with fudbus business
10:36 cjb any other urgent business for this meeting?
10:36 walterbender just discussion, I think
10:36 SeanDaly well, I wanted to know if possible put e-books in ASLO
10:36 walterbender the policies re ebooks, acitvities, etc
10:37 and of course, the trademark issue
10:37 cjb oh, yes!
10:37 bernie adam: agreed..i'll remind SJ & Caryl to weigh in if they have final thoughts on DP's wiki page, even if defunct
10:37 SeanDaly I haven't thought deeply on implications, was caught short with licensing issue
10:37 cjb motion:  no non-free software or content on ASLO, as judged by DFSG/OSI
10:37 walterbender but we will have to carry on without our FUDCon friends :(
10:37 cjb fudbus folks, what'd you think?
10:37 walterbender #TOPIC non-FOSS content
10:37 tomeu SeanDaly: it may be more convenient if we found one or more partners who wanted to take the content side of all this
10:37 SeanDaly: so we don't have to spread ourselves too thin
10:38 bernie bernie: ok, switching battery
10:38 SeanDaly no, the context is helping parents/teachers get started with e-books
10:38 tomeu SeanDaly: so not solving the whole content problem but some first step?
10:39 SeanDaly there are hundreds, thousands out there, idea is to help newbies use in Sugar
10:39 yes, first step
10:39 we wstarted wiki page for that
10:39 walterbender this parallels the debate we had at OLPC re content.
10:39 SeanDaly wiki page may be better than ASLO
10:39 walterbender we can never do more than plant seeds
10:39 tomeu SeanDaly: so maybe there's enough free content out there?
10:40 walterbender and show others how to take initiative
10:40 SeanDaly tomeu: there's a vast amount, but when there isn't any with Sugar or close by, it's a technical barrier
10:40 idea is to have a few available, so people can try ereaders
10:40 walterbender I don't believe it is our mission to solve the content problem, but lowering technical and culture barriers is our mission
10:41 tomeu SeanDaly: I mean, there isn't enough free content to "solve the whole content problem", but there may be enough free content for that first step
10:41 SeanDaly and hint how to search in repositories, online etc.
10:41 tomeu: yes, we had put effort into finding a dozen nice books in half a dozen languages
10:42 idea is to make first step easy: find, obtain, what format, which Activity
10:42 walterbender what is the SLOBs issue here? seems we are drifting off topic
10:43 tomeu ok, so do we need to tackle the issue of non-free content on aslo right now?
10:43 cjb walterbender: I made a motion and everything :)
10:43 there are two issues, related:
10:43 * someone wants to put Skype etc on ASLO
10:43 * someone wants to put non-free ebooks on ASLO
10:43 walterbender tomeu: yes in that there are some non-free activities waiting for approval
10:43 SeanDaly issue was: ASLO a place for content bundles?
10:43 tomeu oh, ok
10:43 cjb in both cases this was kinda reasonable, because there was no-one saying "oh, we have a policy against doing those"
10:43 bernie bernie: back in business
10:43 tomeu in the skype case, I guess it's plain ilegal, even if we really wanted to do that, right?
10:43 cjb tomeu: yes
10:44 tomeu and is there any other non-free but freely-distributable software proposed for aslo?
10:44 cjb tomeu: just the content, I think
10:44 walterbender bernie: http://pastebin.be/22311
10:44 bernie mel: we do not have a license policy on what can go on ASLO, right?
10:44 SeanDaly piles of flash stuff?
10:44 cjb SeanDaly: flash stuff can be free
10:45 bernie: right -- currently no
10:45 bernie: we'd be creating one now
10:45 tomeu SeanDaly: but isn't most flash stuff out there without any license info at all?
10:45 so we don't really know if it's actually freely-distributable
10:45 SeanDaly cjb: free as in 4 freedoms?
10:45 cjb SeanDaly: legally, yes
10:45 you can make a Flash app and release it under the GPL
10:46 bernie I'd like to have something like http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing
10:46 SeanDaly huge amount of free-online in Flash has no license info,
10:46 cjb I still think flash apps don't provide useful versions of the four freedoms, but that's a much more subtle point
10:46 bernie which includes a list of acceptable licenses, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/[…]ing#Good_Licenses
10:46 (this is Mel)
10:46 cjb SeanDaly: sure, I agree
10:46 SeanDaly I think because offline Flash difficult so always assumed to be online
10:46 walterbender cjb: not sure where you put or access the license info in Flash
10:46 bernie mel: basically, have a legal req for content posted on ASLO (possibly extend that to other things that SL distributes, but ASLO seems to be the issue at present)
10:46 cjb Mel: We could do that, or just adopt the DFSG/OSI rules
10:47 Mel: The advantage of using the rules is that they cope with new licenses as well as current ones.
10:47 bernie mel: I'm happy with any non-ambiguous statement of what we do and don't allow license-wise, honestly.
10:47 cjb walterbender: that's a good point
10:47 bernie cjb: link?
10:47 cjb http://opensource.org/docs/osd
10:47 bernie mel: that sounds like a good idea to me though
10:47 cjb the Debian Free Software Guidelines are basically identical
10:48 MOTION: adopt http://opensource.org/docs/osd as the source for what is permitted on ASLO, for both software and content
10:48 bernie bus riders are looking at the link, one sec
10:48 SeanDaly I'd rather read that first before voting on anything
10:49 cjb ok.  we could postpone.
10:49 walterbender so another homework assignment so we can vote next week?
10:49 bernie mel: I'm good with the list
10:49 mel: I've read it already
10:49 tomeu and I guess SFC has a say on this?
10:49 walterbender but we seem to have consensus on the basic idea?
10:50 tomeu because relates to their mission?
10:50 cjb tomeu: yes.  we mentioned the idea that we might distribute something that isn't on this list (ebooks under CC noncommercial license), and they decided they'd have to talk to their board about it
10:50 walterbender I'll check with the SFC. They owe us a response re NC and ND licenses already :)
10:50 cjb so I'm sure they're very much in agreement with the motion
10:51 (that was about SoaS, though, not ASLO)
10:51 bernie bernie: cjb: while I agree with the OSI definition of what constitutes an open source license, I'd much prefer a list of acceptable licenses rather than a set of rules that would force us to go through a lawyer every time we see a new license.
10:51 cjb bernie: both are useful, neither are sufficient
10:51 bernie: if someone proposes Skype
10:51 walterbender bernie: http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical
10:51 that is a list
10:51 bernie mel: they're not incompatible, we can say "our legal thing is the OSD, here's a list of licenses we know fit these criteria, new ones come talk to us."
10:51 cjb and I can't find "the Skype license" in Fedora's list
10:51 SeanDaly ASLO is response to SoaS problem
10:51 cjb I need a way to reject it
10:51 bernie mel: walterbender: exactly
10:51 cjb (legally happened to work in this example)
10:51 but anyway, many times random non-free software might be proposed
10:52 it won't always have a license on that list, or a license at all
10:52 so the motion helps by giving community guidelines on what *type* of software is permitted
10:52 let's rephrase, though:
10:53 MOTION: adopt http://opensource.org/docs/osd as a set of guidelines for what is permitted on ASLO, for both software and content, and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/[…]ing#Good_Licenses's opinions on specific licenses where applicable
10:53 bernie: does that cover your concern?
10:53 walterbender cjb: this still skirts the other issue though: does the content or s'ware abide by community standards... a tough one.
10:53 bernie bernie: cjb aye
10:53 SeanDaly I cannot rush into a vote without reading and understanding that page.
10:53 cjb SeanDaly: that's fine.  I won't push you to.
10:53 SeanDaly Something I can't do in the next 30 seconds.
10:53 bernie mel: Table for next meeting, reading homework for next week?
10:53 cjb SeanDaly: I just want the motion to be clear.
10:54 bernie mel: I'll take the homework assignment of blogging this so that others pick up on it on Planet (and hopefully Fedora folks can chime in as well)
10:54 (and $otherdistros if we can get them)
10:54 walterbender OK. I think we have enough background now to move quickly to a decision next week.
10:54 SeanDaly walterbender: yes
10:54 cjb mel: thanks!
10:54 that's a good idea
10:54 bernie #action mchua to blog licensing motion
10:54 walterbender OK. Next topic? We have about 5 more minutes.
10:55 bernie #action everyone to do their homework of reading OSD guidelines so we can be informed voters next Friday
10:55 mel: yeah, let's move on
10:55 walterbender #ACTION mel blog and the rest of us do homework with the intention of deciding next week
10:55 thinks only the person who typed #startmeeting  can #action
10:56 bernie we'll find out :)
10:56 walterbender #TOPIC trademark
10:56 bernie walterbender: thanks for raising the nasty "community standards" issue we'll laaaater have to face..
10:56 (adam)
10:56 walterbender we have a number of outstanding trademark policies to reach consensus on.
10:57 bernie mel: can we line up the to-do list on those and then break for the week with homework? I don't think we have enough time to discuss and vote on anything else atm
10:57 walterbender adam: yes. an important, thorny topic.
10:57 mel: I agree.
10:57 SeanDaly very thorny indeed
10:57 bernie mel: and honestly ASLO licensing is kind of a big deal so if we line that up for next week's Big Goal I'm pretty happy
10:58 walterbender I'd like everyone to come to the next meeting with some opinion re the trademark usage.
10:58 from my homework, it seems the two extremes are Fedora and Suse
10:58 bernie mel: proposal everyone blog their opinion or email it to iaep
10:58 walterbender to gist: Fedora will let anything be called a remix, but almost nothing be called Fedora
10:58 cjb Fedora's not actually that extreme, because it offers both models:
10:58 .. yeah, those.  :)
10:59 walterbender openSuse will not allow remix at all
10:59 cjb it's easy to be a Remix, and it's hard to be Fedora
10:59 bernie mel: we need to do more about starting discussion on slobs issues beyond the 7 of us imo
10:59 walterbender cjb: yes. that is what I was trying to say
10:59 SeanDaly concerning trademark, there are several kilos worth of e-mails in the lists
10:59 walterbender and to contrast that with openSUSE, which as far as I understand, really doesn't have a remix option
11:00 SeanDaly: yes. it is time to distill it all into a policy
11:00 SeanDaly yes, fully aggree
11:00 s/gg/g
11:00 bernie bernie: walterbender, cjb: I'd like to point out that the fedora trademark policy is one of the strictest among linux distros
11:01 walterbender bernie: seeming not as strict as openSUSE.
11:01 bernie mel: I'd like to propose we wrap up this meeting
11:01 SeanDaly my instinct is to look at trademark policy of better-known brands
11:01 walterbender bernie: can you give an example of a less strict policy for us to consider?
11:01 bernie mel: proposal - next week do ASLO and only ASLO - anything else we do is bonus... immediately after ASLO, then tackle trademark.
11:01 cjb hm
11:01 walterbender (everyone was going to research one for today's meeting)
11:01 bernie mel: notes that bernie and I have to go to the infra meeting immediately after this
11:02 cjb mel: this is instead of doing the SoaS DP next week?
11:02 I don't know why we'd prioritize something that's been a problem for a week over something that's been a problem for like four months :)
11:02 walterbender I think we need to do both. the ASLO discussion will be quick.
11:02 bernie cjb: because I think we can wrap up ASLO next week cleanly and be done with it
11:02 walterbender (I predict)
11:02 bernie (mel)
11:02 cjb yeah, +1 on walter
11:02 bernie mel: then I'd like to do ASLO first ;)
11:02 if we think it'll be that quick
11:02 walterbender but we should wrap up today's meeting.
11:02 cjb well, okay.. yeah, was about to say that too
11:03 SeanDaly There is a current case of trademark usage
11:03 cjb (what mel said)
11:03 walterbender any final words?
11:03 SeanDaly in a way that shouldn't
11:03 bernie mel: nope, happy to close now
11:03 walterbender 3
11:03 2
11:03 1
11:03 cjb SeanDaly: let's talk about that now
11:03 bernie Bye from the FUDbuss @
11:03 cjb but in the closed meeting
11:03 walterbender thanks everyone
11:03 SeanDaly cjb:ok
11:03 thanks all
11:03 cjb I mean, let's hang around and talk about it
11:03 thanks all
11:03 walterbender I'll post the minutes
11:03 #endmeeting

Minutes | Index | Today     Channels | Search | Join

Powered by ilbot/Modified.